3 ms·
No, that's not how you run a working network. Bulk data doesn't need a higher priority in the first place, so giving it a higher priority will only do harm.
by swinglock 7y ago
No, that's not how you run a working network. Bulk data doesn't need a higher priority in the first place, so giving it a higher priority will only do harm.
- raxxorrax 7y agoNot a higher priority of course. Just keep it going. Speaking of which... quite a few conferencing solutions are down right now in central Europe.
- swinglock 7y ago> Not a higher priority of course. Just keep it going. Sure, I agree. And if the hospital data is critical, you can already pay an ISP to get guaranteed bandwidth over a VPN between your hospitals. It will cost you dearly but if the best-effort nature of the Internet won't do it for you, you pay. > Speaking of which... quite a few conferencing solutions are down right now in central Europe. Isn't that because the backends of those services are overloaded, not because of congestion between networks? That happened to Microsoft Teams, I'm sure it happened to more of them.
- leetcrew 7y agois this discussion missing the important distinction between QoS and bandwidth limiting? I can certainly agree emergency communications warrant better QoS guarantees than a netflix stream; it's probably not a big deal if your stream drops more packets than usual, but it matters a lot for real-time communication. if we're talking about throttling connections, OP of this thread has a good point. if you want to keep people cooped up in their houses indefinitely, you gotta throw them a bone of some sort. throttling their netflix stream is going to piss people off, and at the margins, people might just say fuck it and go outside.